Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the key/OAuth requirement for capacity items and the enabled/status state on returned items. It stops short of disclosing pagination or limits, so it is strong but not maximal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but well front-loaded: purpose, read-only, return shape, usage, then exclusions. Every sentence carries information, though the enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero params, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, auth requirements, the routing action (grab intent_id for delete) and the exclusions. Nothing material is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description adds no parameter guidance, but with an empty schema and no params to document, nothing is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the standing intents registered on your key') and enumerates exactly what is covered (webhook watches plus capacity requirements). It names the distinguishing sibling tools it is not (register_standing_intent, get_news, list_transactions), so an agent can separate it from the crowded sibling set without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives when-to-use (finding an intent_id for delete_standing_intent, confirming a register landed, answering 'what am I currently watching') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.